Michael Ray Kerr v. the State of Texas, 02-20-00034-CR

On June 13, 2019, a 2012 Chevy Silverado was reported stolen; Deputy Jarrett Turner later observed a black Chevy with plates not registered to the truck and identified the driver as Michael Ray Kerr by facial tattoos.
When Turner activated his lights at an ATM, Kerr fled, swerved off the road, exited the moving truck, and ran; the truck struck a pole and Kerr was later arrested.
Kerr admitted driving the truck and that he knew it was stolen; he was indicted for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and evading arrest with a vehicle.
Trial counsel filed three motions for continuance (alleging newly discovered facts and need for investigation and scheduling conflicts); the trial court denied the continuances but granted a motion for an investigator.
A jury convicted Kerr of both offenses; punishment was 20 years for unauthorized use and 75 years for evading, to run concurrently.
Kerr filed a verified motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance (including that counsel blocked acceptance of a plea offer) and requested a hearing; the record contains only a certificate of presentment and the trial court did not hold a hearing. The court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kerr)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on Kerr's verified motion for new trial	Kerr argued he timely filed a verified motion with affidavit and requested a hearing showing ineffective assistance, so a hearing was required	State contended Kerr failed to make a prima facie showing and the certificate of presentment alone does not prove actual presentation to the court	Court held issue not preserved: certificate of presentment alone insufficient to show the motion/hearing were presented; no abuse found
Whether denial of three continuances was an abuse of discretion that prejudiced Kerr's defense (theory that someone else stole the truck)	Kerr argued continuances were needed to investigate newly discovered facts and prepare a defensive theory that another person stole the truck	State argued the alleged new evidence was irrelevant to the charged offenses (Kerr admitted knowing truck was stolen and was not charged with theft) and scheduling/State interests justified denial	Court held no error or prejudice: continuance denials were within discretion and did not harm Kerr's defense

Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standard: review of trial court’s refusal to hold new-trial hearing is abuse-of-discretion)
Obella v. State, 532 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (preservation and presentment requirements for new-trial hearings)
Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (certificate of presentment alone is insufficient to prove actual presentment)
Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (same; requirements to preserve complaint about new-trial hearing)
Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate courts must address preservation even if not raised by the State)
Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (continuance denial reversible only if both error and specific prejudice shown)
Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for review of continuance denials)
Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (bare assertions of prejudice insufficient to establish harm)